The first posts offensive numbers of .322/.369/.480. Impressive, no? The guy plays consistent, reliable defense but has somewhat limited range, especially up the middle. He’s tough, he’s respected around the game, and he’s a perennial All-Star.

The second is significantly less impressive offensively, posting a line of .279/.323/.404, certainly not the truly awful offensive output that many shortstops have posted over the years, but no real peer of our first shortstop. Despite this, however, he too is a perennial All-Star.

These two shortstops, we’ll say, play identical defense. They even collect the same salary and look the same, save slightly different uniforms.

So, which player would you rather have? Of course you’d rather have the first. Why would you want to pay the same money for the second guy when the first guy is so much better? And where are we going with all of this?